Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 21, 2018 2:00pm-3:01pm PST

2:00 pm
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
2:04 pm
2:05 pm
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
2:10 pm
2:11 pm
>>-that we put this over to the -- the january 2019 meeting in order for her to be able to participate in the discussion and any possible vote, so i would like to do that at this time. and executive director pelham? >> thank you, chair chiu. i also would just note we received some public comment yesterday and wednesday regarding the item five and request to continue it to january . so those communications are on the public table and have bye-bye shared with anybody interested. >> so moved. >> second.
2:12 pm
>> all in favor? [voting] >> all right -- still have to -- public comment on this item? [inaudi public
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
dollars to support candidates who turnaround and pass the law on purpose and abuse government power. people's government is for the people, support the people. san francisco, we have 23,000 drug abusers-users. raise $200 million a year. can you have some kind of heart for protection for us? you can create laws and limited financial matching dollars. if the super pac people continue to do so, which is what happened to us. the people want changes in san francisco. they are not allowed to change because they are all supported by super pacs.
2:15 pm
we'll never see change unless you change the law to protect the public. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> for the past several months, i've been investigating the thousand oaks bar shooting -- the funding from that -- >> will the speaker identify himself? >> my name is thomas duffy. the funding for that investigation came through the lillian
2:16 pm
which no one was expected,
2:17 pm
then, the way to combat this really is with information. i actually think the limit is too low. anyone who works in nonprofits understands that if you put your effort into cultivating a few large donors who may just be well intentioned, you're going to get much more bang for your buck rather than up and downering to the masses, so i do think the 500 contribution limit is too low, but i suggest look at the business taxes, make those filings public. thank you. >> excuse me, madam chair. >> commissioner kopp? >> do you have a written analysis of your remarks? >> i have a copy that i provided for representative tester. >> could i provide that to me? >> i will. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on agenda item number five?
2:18 pm
agenda item number six, discussion of staff recommendations regarding amendments to campaign finance and conflict of interest regulations. >> thank you, chair chiu. this shows the next in the staff cfro regs. here, you see what we are proposing as a set of comprehensive amendments to the regs, and this would do several things. one, it would fix where the regs no longer match the code, where the code has changed, it would provide clarity on new provisions in the code, on the acao that went into effect this year has brought into the code, and it would also help to clarify areas where people have had problems with the code. they haven't understood it or also with the regs, they haven't understood the regs. some parts have been confusing
2:19 pm
the these are our recommendations. at this point, they're here for informational purposes, if you have questions, if you have feedback, but at this point, there's no action necessary. we plan to, subject to feedback that we hear today and between today and the next meeting, we plan to draft these into actual reg language and then put them before you at the next meeting for consideration, but at this point, it's just for discussion purposes, so glad to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. ford. one question that i had as you noted in your remarks just now, the amendments were updated to conform with code changes. if you come back next month, i had like to ask if you can make a recommendation as to how we can continue to do this so the
2:20 pm
regs don't fall out of sync, so they'll be more consistent. >> i'll be glad to provide some information about that, sure. >> thank you. open this up to any questions from my fellow commissioners or any comments. public comment on agenda item number six. >> it's not that public employees don't want to come here. you know that public employees have busy schedule. i took my time and represent many people. of course i speak on my own. we know the bottom 30 trick about super pac. we had -- bought it up, many people bought it up because this is not new. the board of supervisors and elected officers, they are related to super pac. that is called conflict of interest. they received thousands and thousands of money to do outreach to misleading the
2:21 pm
voters of san francisco and do public events and invite people to mail forms and events, only democrats, only. no one else but democrats, not only democrats, but the democrats who are directly related to super pacs. that's exactly what conflict of interest means. you guys are all attorneys and laws. this is what constitution means. constitution is not a government of majority rules. constitution is government for those people who participate. we the people who have representation participate in the government. unfortunately our government is paid and bought by democratic parties solely alone. so if you want to help the san francisco and reduce many of those problems, like the drug abusers, like the homelessness,
2:22 pm
it's about time to for you to think about policy, conflict of interest. we brought it up to you -- i brought it up to you. mark farrell is the most, received the cannabis operator donations. london breed is the second one, and other people. unfortunately, they are the one also appointed you, so i learned the word is called deep state. it's a we'll talk on
2:23 pm
2:24 pm
more substantive matters, such as the qualification of people who are making donations with the goal of qualifying those donations for feed money, essentially, for the candidate that they're supporting. that gets into the question like maybe it's time to do a presentation of the seattle model. there was an n.p.r. report this morning on morning edition on the seattle model, and that seattle has decided to go ahead
2:25 pm
with another year of the program as they iron out some of the issues, and they're aread ahead of everyone else in the country, so that's a very good system for us to look at and see where the pitfalls are. so i'm assuming the commission plans to take up other plans related complexities after we do this initial cut on some of the more simple matters and updating of the current law and the regs so that we can be current in our operations for november . thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item number six? okay. agenda item number seven, discussion of the monthly staff policy report. >> thank you, chair chiu. agenda item seven is my monthly
2:26 pm
report updating you on how the policy division is working on the three policy priorities that the commission identified, so those are the public financing review project, which, of course, is on today's agenda, but it's been continued to january . likewise, the cfro regs we just talked about under agenda item number six. and then, lastly, on-line paid political communications is something that is not agendaized today, but it's still a policy priority. staff are looking at -- we're tracking -- director pelham will tell you during her report that staff travelled to philadelphia for the conference on government ethics laws about on-line communications, so
2:27 pm
we're still digesting what we learned there, and we might put up some information on our website to help people digest the issues because people are talking about that a lot. aside from the identified policy projects, our second part, what we're calling miscellaneous administrative projects, that are either le leftover from earlier or dealt with on an as-needed basis, you can see those projects here. one is looking at regulation of county central committee, candidate committees, so these are candidate committee, controlled by candidates, looking for central committees. staff met with an attorney at the fppc, and at this point, it looks like it's going to take a lot more analysis and development of this project to really -- to move it forward. so i think at this point, i'm recommending that if the
2:28 pm
commission wants to move forward with it, that next month, when the commission looks at the quarterly policy plan of what projects would you like staff to work on as major policy plans, that if you'd like us to move forward, that you consider this policy project there. but i think at this point, we're just unable to do it as a quick and easy investigation to see whether or not we're preempted from doing these laws. it's not clear and until we make it a bigger project, we won't know. the legislation, i just checked on-line right now, and i don't have any further update on the whistle blower item, it is still at the mayor's office. so it has been approved on the first reading and finally passed by the board of supervisors, so it is in the mayor's office. i do not know what the status is or not that. >> once it is signed, how long before it goes into effect? >> 30 days. >> 30 days? so presumably, hopefully
2:29 pm
sometime in early january or early february 2019? >> i would hope so. i would hope so. >> okay. >> and then, the other item that became effective yesterday -- today's the 21st, so that became effective yesterday. and then, finally acao implementation, the final provisions of the acao that have not gone into effect will go into effect the first of the year, so staff is working very quickly to make sure that's rolled out and ready to go. so our electronic disclosure and data analysis team is working really hard to getting the e-forms ready to go. they're working on getting those ready, and then, engagement compliance team is work, and so am i, on making sure that we have explanatory materials up, that once these law right side in effect, that people have resources that they can go to to make sure they
2:30 pm
understand them. >> once the law goes into effect january 1, will those materials, at least the preliminary ones, be available on-line for the public to access january 1 or shortly thereafter? >> yes. [inaudible] >> and then, on the last item, universal electronic filing, is there a rollout on that?
2:31 pm
is that something we expect to see fiscal year 2019 or first half 2019 calendar year? >> yeah. i think realistically, just given the scope of this project, it would probably be looking at 2020. i think it will take the bulk of next year to really move this ahead. right now, we're still scoping this and just trying to understand what it would take for it to happen. it could potentially trigger meet and confer, which means we would have to talk with bargaining units. it would also involve a lot of electronic systems that we don't have in place right now, so we're trying to figure out what all the moving pieces are, and how we'll have to structure the project to get it done as quickly as possible, but it looks like it's a year-long project. >> the earliest effective date of it would be 2020, because we wouldn't make it for 2019 any way because it's --
2:32 pm
>> i don't think so. i think it's very unlikely. >> okay. thank you. any other questions? commissioner kopp? >> i want to ask you two questions. one, hasn't this question of local ethics law applying to a political party county central committee been answered by any attorney general's opinion or legislative counsel opinion? >> no. >> is there any comparable -- such legislation in any other states? >> that, i don't know.
2:33 pm
i would have to look it up. >> it's surprising that it hasn't been the subject of other legal opinion. the other matter, the bills pending in the legislature, and when the summary states support, does that mean board of supervisors and mayor have agreed in a resolution to support those measure ms. >> -- measures? >> no, it means that the fppc is supporting it. >> well, i would suggest that you make that clear henceforth. >> chair, i can work on that. >> all right. and are any of these subject of action by the board of supervisors and mayor? >> not as far as i know. >> okay. thank you, madam chairwoman. >> thank you. any other questions? public comment on item number
2:34 pm
seven? >> charlie marstellar again, for the record. i'm interested in the quality of your reporting on the activities in the legislature. i think that's the first systematic -- this is the first process which i've seen in the city which monitors so effectively. so i know you're getting this from eight databases, so i thank you for that because i know most people are too busy to go to sacramento to look this stuff up. when the governor vetoes an act, it would be helpful -- for
2:35 pm
example, one was vetoed in august, from what i'm reading, yes. it would be useful to see if it's going to be revisited or what the governor's message was, if there's an indication it's going back to the legislature for an amendment, if it's a dead duck or dead on arrival forever. just so we know, i think a lot of bills are vetoed with the idea of negotiating with the legislature, so it would be interesting seeing if there's some negotiation underway, and i assume the governor would say that in his veto message. and i'm surprised they wouldn't note that maybe in the fppc or maybe the secretary of state is doing this database or is it, i guess, clerk of the assembly, but it's interesting to see what
2:36 pm
what what's what happening to these things if they're vetoed, if they're coming back. i think that's all i want to say -- oh, i missed a beat. you are holding an item that will be held for future discussion in 2020. what was that again? we just had that discussion and i missed it. [inaudible] >> oh, very good. e-filing has been looking good to me, and the dashboard is good -- great. you've done great and good work, and i'm sure that the mayor and the board is pleased, as well. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item number seven? okay. agenda -- commissioner kopp? >> yeah, to mr. ford, please get me a copy of the governor's message and vetoing ab-2689.
2:37 pm
>> sure, no problem. >> agenda item number eight -- excuse me. agenda item number eight, discussion of monthly staff enforcement report, including an update on the various activities since the last monthly meeting. >> i have a comment.
2:38 pm
>> commissioner? >> in the first paragraph, the second sentence states, the division now has 101 matters in preliminary review, 85 matters under investigation. i'd request that henceforth, that customary statement also include how many matters in preliminary review the prior month and the how many matters under investigation the prior month plus how many in preliminary review and under investigation respectively in the prior year, same month. >> prior year, same month. okay.
2:39 pm
thank you. >> thank you. >> public comment on agenda item number 8? moving on, then, to agenda item number nine, discussion of the executive director's report, update and highlights of staff and commission since the last committee meeting. >> deputy director of phonement and lela fares, and senior analyst pat ford and i were fortunate to attend this year the 40th anniversary conference of the council on government and ethics laws. this year's conference was in philadelphia. it's a three-day, full -- almost four days, actually.
2:40 pm
three days of concurrent sessions and plenary sessions for people from departments to get together and discuss the issues. as pat indicated in his report, we are still digesting some of that information. we are consciously pulling together resources from the conferences to share with our staff colleagues who were not able to attend because we know there's a lot of information to share. so i'm happy to answer any questions about that, but we appreciate that we were able to have the travel budget and the training budget to provide staff to attend this opportunity. also, in terms of the hiring updates, i did want to share with you that jacqueline hickey received an opportunity to move to the board of supervisors
2:41 pm
clerk's office where she can work there to help dealing with ethics issues, so that's an opportunity for her to expand her knowledge, skills and abilities. we were sad to see her leave, but we are glad to know she will still be in the building. she was a crucial piece of our operations over the last couple of years, but we are sorry to see her go. two other temporary staff for the last part of this year for help during the elections were able to move onto longer-term positions with the city, so they also left service with the commission last month. but on this week, we did welcome nikkei andino, and he'll be helping with front
2:42 pm
office staff and engagement and compliance work across the board. lastly, we've been continuing wouldwork with the department of human resources on five positions, they have moved into the interview phase. i am hopeful that we will have interviews starting the early part of january , and that you will, in the new year, see new faces around the table and in our office. we are making progress. it's a bit slow, but it is steady progress, and i'm hopeful that we'll have great hires to report to you in the coming months. happy to answer any questions if you have them or any suggestions for future e.d.r. reports. >> any questions for the executive director? well, good luck in the hiring process. it's always a challenge, and wish everyone the best in their future endeavors and for jackie's position, that will be posted in due course in the new year, and you'll start with the hiring for that, as well.
2:43 pm
>> i do have one comment. the budget for the year compared with where we are, what's the explanation of the great variance? >> well, these are revenues, and i think when we look across the board, one of the larger numbers that we will tend to see an increase will be in january -- excuse me, will be in february , once we see the lobbyist registration fees for this fiscal year. so that's probably the bulk of the difference that you will notice in future reports. >> so we are about not quite halfway through -- or are we -- we're five months through the fiscal year. >> these reflect numbers through the middle of december, so we're about 4.5, five months through the fiscal year to report on. >> public comment on agenda
2:44 pm
item number nine? >> i heard it was rather cold in philadelphia, and that would help your noses to the grindstone indoors, i'm sure, so we can be assured that the taxpayer got some result from expenditure to support our staff in philadelphia during the bitter cold. i did want to say that cogel is a real asset to us, and i'm glad that we have the budget now to support that. in the past, this was always a big problem. we could have real strife with the mayor over that issue, and i'm glad that we've now got a way to attend very robustly those conferences, and not only
2:45 pm
that, but participate in them. one year, we did sponsor cogel here in the city, and i'm sure our time will come again, and probably soon. it's been a while. again, i'm really pleased on the hiring, and i would be concerned, as mr. cope kopp is about the accumulation of cases coming up because we're short investigative staffs in administrative, policy, or whatever issues you want to talk about. i would note to your interest and i'm sure you read it in the paper about the personal property owner who demolished a property here in the city and the robust response by planning
2:46 pm
for remedy as best as can be done in such a retrospec titiv way. i'm very confused as to how the d.b.i. permitting process would allowed house to be demolished, that the inspectors weren't really clear about what the restraints were on those permits. i assume they were done by planning initially, at least, and i know that planning was very upset when that property -- they found out that property had been demolished. it seems to me it was done very quickly, as some of these things tend to be. but i will say it's gotten a lot of attention in the press, nationally and internationally. i even heard the story on the b.b.c., so congratulations to planning for keeping on top of
2:47 pm
that retroactively. >> okay. any other comment? item ten, discussion and possible action on complaints received by the ethics commission? [inaudible] >> we'll call -- call for public comment on agenda item number ten. >> because this particular item allows you to go into closed session, i'd like to point out that earlier this week, the city attorney filed charges against big pharma for supposedly doing something with oxycontin. we've had the city attorney sue chevron because it sells oil. now we have it suing
2:48 pm
pharmaceutical companies because it makes pharmaceuticals. back in 2002, the city attorney who was accused of ballot floating in the bay, signed off on about so-called litigation, which you are required -- you are affirmed to take action on behalf of others because they don't have access to civil litigation, that he would seek preclearance for all future actions. now, i don't know whether preclearance existed because the cone of attorney-client privilege was lowered on the process besides before he decided to blow a whole bunch of taxpayers' money on suing big pharma without any public comment. so i don't know what you're going to do in closed session, but here's a question that i have been asking about the city attorney. why haven't -- hasn't this city attorney sued tetratech? this city attorney hasn't even tweeted about tetra tech. it's the great tweet of
2:49 pm
silence. even the federal government signed on. we have our own radioactive love canal here in san francisco, and absolutely no affirmation by the person who's able to do it. maybe the naval intelligence office wants their own person in san francisco. why not the city attorney's office? after all, we are the stinking city by the seawall, restoring the we had lands on the waterfront. >> madam chairwoman? >> commissioner kopp? >> as always or as usually always, i appreciate the remarks in public comment, but because there just might be people confused who are watching on cable television,
2:50 pm
it should be recorded that this commission is not assessed with the responsibilities of the city attorney or responsibilities over the city attorney. the city attorney is an elected official of the city and county of san francisco. this commission has four or five different jurisdictional ordinances, and the subject matter of the last public comment is not a part of those legal responsibilities of this commission. and i'll observe again that people have sometimes a
2:51 pm
misimpression that almost when all else fails, go to the ethics commission, and the ethics commission will act on some complaint on a public elected official, failure to execute public responsibilities or a city department or employee's failure to act in a certain way. we are not all things to all the people of the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. >> agenda item number 11, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. commissioner kopp? >> i have a request for preliminary review of statements, activities, and actions which are reflected in
2:52 pm
a newspaper article that was published three days ago. it's about seven pages. i have underlined what i consider pertinent portions of it. it involves a city employee by the name of aimee brown-nell who is an employee in the department of health, and in the environmental division of the department of health activity which includes statements made at the request of a developer of the famous
2:53 pm
hunters point naval shipyard and representations made to interested purchasers of housing within that shipyard's land development. i ask that the staff commence and complete, as soon as possible, a preliminary review to determine if there are grounds upon which to begin an official investigation of any violations of law. thank you, mr. ford. >> any other commissioners? public comment on agenda item
2:54 pm
number 11? okay. there being none, excuse me, agenda item number 12, additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission bylaws, article 7, section 2. >> political stunts can be a form of campaign contributions. those who have studied history know that nothing empowers an authoritiarian regime more. acts of terror and violence never benefit the average man or woman, they only benefit those in power. this is why nero fiddled while
2:55 pm
rome burned. this is hundreds of government examples of staging a tax in order to blame them on their political enemies in every civ civilization in every historical period, sadly, throughout history, there have been all too many to be willing to allow such a tax to occur, to pretend they have not occurred, or to attack their own people in order to further their own political agenda. to think this no longer occur would be as outlandish to think that human misconduct never occurred. the canadians are learning how their own provincial police dressed up in protesters in 2007 and threatened violence against the police in order to
2:56 pm
force a crock down, and the americans are learning there are multiple bottoms dismantled and taken out of the al fred f.murrah building in 1993. california had a new senator with an agenda looking to have a legacy, a law enforcement and legislature fearful, and it had a government that was desperately unpopular in the face of growing dissatisfaction. if anything, the situation today is worse than it was in the run upto the oklahoma city bombing. groups of concerned citizens are being abeing at thatted by
2:57 pm
the controlling minions on the left and the right, and now it's not just the militia being attacked, it's anyone. but there's something else different. the people are learning something else about terrorism. they are not terrorists for speaking out, and if there is another staged event to blame on the government at the end of the day, the people will know who to blame. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> i just wanted to wish everybody a season's greetings and have a happy new year. see you next month. >> and to you. >> before we adjourn, i just wanted to echo mr. marstellar, and wish everyone a relaxing holiday, and see everyone back here in 2018. motion to adjourn? >> so moved.
2:58 pm
>> all in favor? [voting] >> all right. we are adjourned for 2018. thank you very much. [ gavel ]
2:59 pm
- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries,
3:00 pm
as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. [♪] >> we are here today on sunset boulevard, which is a wonderful 2-mile stretch that runs through district four, and it is a place where people from all over the neighborhood, all over the city can come and use it for recreation, for exercise, for just enjoying nature, walking their dogs, and so we have been partnering with public works, as ll


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on